New Order of the Barbarians

camelotJust spent the early morning making a pdf, as if there weren’t enough other things to do.

It works this way – someone sends something, in this case, Ian PJ and even he admits he hasn’t read it. There are two things I can do, as it’s close to 50 pages when edited.

Skim read first and if there’s anything of interest, then make the decision – wade through it and format it – it as all over the place, grammatically – or just say: “No time.”


This is available on the web anyway.   Oh well, let’s go for it.

It represented two taped interviews recorded in 1988,the recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended on March 20, 1969 at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Paediatric Society. There is then a third tape transcribed.

The meeting was addressed by Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989) who at the time was Professor of Paediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Dr. Dunegan was formerly a student of Dr. Day at the University of Pittsburgh and was well acquainted with him, though not intimately.

He describes Dr. Day as an insider of the “Order” and although Dr. Dunegan’s memory was somewhat dimmed by the intervening years, he is able to provide enough details of the lecture to enable any enlightened person to discern the real purposes behind the trends of our time.

The pdf I made is not currently loading but I’ll try again during the day and place it here.


There’s a type of Christian and I do not mean the CINOs, from the megachurch megarich to the Billy Grahams to the apologists for relativism today nor the Christian Right in America, nor the happy clappers nor the cherry pickers – I mean the people on the net who, precisely because of their faith, recognize the enemy quite easily.

There’s a second type of detractor of the PTB, a non-Christian and he or she is secular but recognizes Big Brother and the elite, the erosion of freedom, the lack of direct democracy etc. This is the sort of person I spend most of the time with.

Then there is a third type who is either a troll or so out of his brain, where everything is a conspiracy, even going to the toilet is a conspiracy and of course, this lot are the ones who give everyone else a bad name. There was an allegation years ago that one Ted Gunderson, former spook, was a plant, a troll.

Reason some people were saying that was that he was coming out with things which were OTT about mind control and satan et al, things which were unverifiable in any way and he had certain women with him who were writing these things.

Which of course were seized on as an example of fruitcakery at its worst and thus any substantive information, e.g. Alisha Owen’s or Paul Bonnaci’s or those cases in Belgium were tarred and marginalized.    It was the same with MK Ultra.    Unfortunately, it was the shrill and highly capitalized writers who brought it to people’s attention, thus ensuring no one believed it.

So what were the bona fides of the doctors in this text below? I’d say the same as Dr. Colin Ross who exposed the psychiatric community, two of those being charged in various parts of the world some years down the track, which confirmed that he wasn’t making it all up in their cases.

What that says to me is that if there is chapter and verse in there, being flatly denied by establishment figures in the standard manner, e.g. the NIST report on WTC7, it’s still worth keeping on the shelf to be brought down if something similar pops up somewhere down the track.

So, take the following as you wish. To me, the timing is quite critical because just as the EU had its antecedents in the Club of Rome, which in turn had its own antecedents, so this document shows that these things were being talked about long ago.

Some of us already know that and know of Woodrow Wilson, colonel House, the Warburgs, Jeckyll Island, Lindbergh Senior and so on.    We don’t need to be told there are people doing these things – look at our current climate scam – the issue is not if these men and women are doing this, it is who is taking any notice.

If govts are taking notice, then we need to look at what moonbattery they’re taking on board.


There has been much written, and much said, by some people who have looked at all the changes that have occurred in American society in the past 20 years or so, and who have looked retrospectively to earlier history of the United States, and indeed, of the world, and come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy of sorts which influences, indeed controls, major historical events, not only in the United States, but also around the world.

This conspiratorial interpretation of history is based on people making observations from the outside, gathering evidence and concluding that from the outside they see a conspiracy. Their evidence and conclusions are based on evidence gathered in retrospect.

I want to now describe what I heard from a speaker in 1969, which in several weeks will now be 20 years ago. The speaker did not speak in terms of retrospect, but rather predicting changes that would be brought about in the future.

The speaker was not looking from the outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he was on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organised power, force, group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events involving countries around the world. In addition, he predicted, or rather expounded on, changes that were planned for the remainder of this century.

As you listen, if you can recall the situation, at least in the United States in 1969 and the few years thereafter, and then recall the kinds of changes which have occurred between then and now, almost 20 years later, I believe you will be impressed with the degree to which the things that were planned to be brought about have already been accomplished.

Some of the things that were discussed were not intended to be accomplished yet by 1988. [Note: the year of this recording] but are intended to be accomplished before the end of this century. There is a timetable; and it was during this session that some of the elements of the timetable were brought out.

Anyone who recalls early in the days of the Kennedy campaign when he spoke of progress in the decade of the 60s”: That was kind of a cliché in those days – “the decade of the 60s.” Well, by 1969 our speaker was talking about the decade of the 70s, the decade of the 80s, and the decade of the 90s. Prior to that time, I don’t remember anybody saying “the decade of the 40’s and the decade of the 50s.

So I think this overall plan and timetable had taken important shape with more predictability to those who control it, sometime in the late 50s.

That’s speculation on my part. In any event, the speaker said that his purpose was to tell us about changes which would be brought about in the next 30 years or so, so that an entirely new world-wide system would be in operation before the turn of the century.

As he put it, “We plan to enter the 21st Century with a running start.”


He said, as we listened to what he was about to present, “Some of you will think I’m talking about Communism. Well, what I’m talking about is much bigger than Communism!”

At that time he indicated that there is much more co-operation between East and West than most people realise. In his introductory remarks, he commented that he was free to speak at this time. He would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few years earlier.

But he was free to speak at this time because now, and I’m quoting here, “everything is in place and nobody can stop us now.”

He went on to say that most people don’t understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in governments, including our own, don’t really understand how and where decisions are made.

He went on to say that people who really influence decisions are names that for the most part would be familiar to most of us, but he would not use individuals’ names or names of any specific organisation.

But that if he did, most of the people would be names that were recognised by most of his audience.

He went on to say that they were not primarily people in public office, but people of prominence who were primarily known in their private occupations or private positions.

The speaker was Dr. Richard Day, a doctor of medicine and a former professor at a large Eastern university, and he was addressing a group of doctors of medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be widely recognised by anybody likely to hear this.

The only purpose in recording this is that it may give a perspective to those who hear it regarding the changes which have already been accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at least some people are planning for the remainder of this century, so that they would enter the 21st Century with a flying start. Some of us may not enter that Century.

His purpose in telling our group about these changes that were to be brought about was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes.

Indeed, as he quite accurately said, “they would be changes that would be very surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept,” and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.


Somewhere in the introductory remarks he insisted that nobody have a tape recorder and that nobody take notes, which for a professor was a very remarkable kind of thing to expect from an audience. Something in his remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if it became widely known that indeed he had spilled the beans, so to speak.

When I first heard that, I thought maybe that was sort of an ego trip, somebody enhancing his own importance. But as the revelations unfolded, I began to understand why he might have had some concern about not having it widely known what was said although this was a fairly public forum where he was speaking. Nonetheless, he asked that no notes be taken, no tape recording be used.

This was suggesting there might be some personal danger to himself if these revelations were widely publicised.

Again, as the remarks began to unfold, and heard the rather outrageous things that were said, I made it a point to try to remember as much of what he said as I could and to connect my recollections to simple events around me to aid my memory for the future, in case I wanted to do what I’m doing now – recording this.

I also wanted to try to maintain a perspective on what would be developing, if indeed, it followed the predicted pattern – which it has!

At this point, so that I don’t forget to include it later, I’ll just include some statements that were made from time to time throughout the presentation. One of the statements was having to do with change.

The statement was, “People will have to get used to the idea of change, so used to change, that they’ll be expecting change. Nothing will be permanent.” This often came out in the context of a society where people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be passively willing to accept change simply because it was all they had ever known.

This was sort of in contrast to generations of people up until this time where certain things you expected to be, and remain in place as reference points for your life. So change was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked.

Another comment that was made from time to time during the presentation was. “People are too trusting, people don’t ask the right questions.”

Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when he would say that “People don’t ask the right questions,” it was almost with a sense of regret as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.


Another comment that was repeated from time to time, particularly in relation to changing laws and customs was, “Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which will make it acceptable to people and second is the real purpose which would further the goals of establishing the new system.

Frequently he would say, “There is just no other way, there’s just no other way!” This seemed to come as a sort of an apology, particularly at the conclusion of describing some particularly offensive changes. For example, the promotion of drug addiction which we’ll get into later.


He was very active with population control groups, the population control movement, and population control was really the entry point into specifics following the introduction. He said the population is growing too fast.

Numbers of people living at any one time on the planet must be limited or we will run out of space to live. We will outgrow our food supply and will pollute the world with our waste.


People won’t be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families would be limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, however outstanding people might be selected and allowed to have three. But most people would be allowed to have only two babies.

That’s because the zero population growth rate is 2.1 children per completed family.

So something like every 10th family might be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point, the words ‘population control’ primarily connoted limiting the number of babies to be born.

But this remark about what people would be ‘allowed’ and then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear ‘population control’ that means more than just controlling births. It means control of every endeavour of an entire world population; a much broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before hearing this.

As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you hear, you will begin to recognise how one aspect dovetails with other aspects in terms of controlling human endeavours.


Well, from population control, the natural next step then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way, that people won’t be having babies.


The first consideration here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected closely in people’s minds with sex. They would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex, and contraception would be made universally available.

Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the open rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed.

This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store.

Contraceptives would be advertised and also dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!


The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the connection between sex and the need for contraception early in their lives, even before they became very active.

At this point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in, and distributing of contraceptives to students.

But, that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based clinic programs got started.

Many cities in the United States by this time have already set up school-based clinics, which are primarily contraception, birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage.

Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would want to be married, but this certainly would not be any longer considered necessary for sexual activity.


No surprise then that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade, he said, “Abortion will no longer be a crime.” Abortion will be accepted as normal, and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions.

Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant.

So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won’t matter anymore.


“People will be given permission to be homosexual,” that’s the way it was stated. They won’t have to hide it. In addition, elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put.

In addition, I remember thinking, “How arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!”

But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative.

Back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts were very, very high and very revealing. He said, “It is not just the amount of skin that is exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive.”

Things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. “If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?” was one of the statements.

There was no detail on what was meant by ‘provocative clothing’, but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they’re more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles.

Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one’s vision to certain anatomic areas. This was around the time of the ‘burn your bra’ activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra.

They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement.

It was not specifically stated, but certainly, a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.


Earlier he said that sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already much, much research was underway about making babies in the laboratory.

There was some elaboration on that, but I don’t remember the details. How much of that technology has come to my attention since that time. I don’t remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical information.


Families would be limited in size. We already alluded to not being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more than once. More people will not marry.

Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very common – nobody would even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no different from married people being together.

More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay together.

This would tend to make the marriage relationship less stable and, therefore, tend to make people less willing to have babies. The extended families would be smaller, and more remote.

Travel would be easier, less expensive, for a while, so that people who did have to travel would feel they could get back to their families, not that they were abruptly being made remote from their families.

But one of the net effects of easier divorce laws combined with the promotion of travel, and transferring families from one city to another, was to create instability in the families.

If both husband and wife are working and one partner is transferred, the other one may not be easily transferred.

Soon, either gives up his or her job and stays behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!


Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life.

After you have had enough of them and you’re no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation. Some things that would help people realise that they had lived long enough, he mentioned several of these. I don’t remember them all but here are a few, the use of very pale printing ink on forms that people are necessary to fill out.

Older people wouldn’t be able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile traffic patterns, there would be more high-speed traffic lanes that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, loses some of their independence.


A big item that was elaborated on at some length was the cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one’s work but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time.

Unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says, “Enough!

What a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people,” then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity.

Then the example was – there could be a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job.

Then after the party’s over they take the ‘demise pill’.


The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled.

The observation that was made in 1969 that, “Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance, is now, abundantly evident. But it’s not necessary, we have other ways to control health care”.

These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don’t work or can’t work, you won’t have access to medical care.

The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. Costs would be forced up so that people won’t be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay for it, you’re entitled to it.

It was only subsequently that I began to realise the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. Therefore, you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished.

As an aside here, this is not something that was developed at that time; I didn’t understand it at the time that it was an aside.

The way this works, everybody has made dependent on insurance and if you don’t have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating room, the insurance company does not pay $600; they only pay $300 or $400.

That differential in billing has the desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could never pay for. They get a discount that’s unavailable to you. When you see your bill you’re grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance.

The whole billing is fraudulent. Access to hospitals would be tightly controlled and identification would be needed to get into the building. The security in and around hospitals would be established and gradually increased so that nobody without identification could get in or move around inside the building.

Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so forth would be ‘allowed’ and exaggerated; reports of it would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to establish the need for strict security until people got used to it.

Anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with a photograph and telling why he was there, employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying themselves – until it was just accepted.

This need for ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to include everybody in all places! It was observed that hospitals can be used to confine people and for the treatment of criminals. This did not mean, necessarily, medical treatment.

At that time I did not know the term ‘Psycho-Prison’ – they are in the Soviet Union, but, without trying to recall all the details, basically, he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the sick, and for confinement of criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal. The definition of criminal was not given.


The image of the doctor would change. No longer would he be seen as an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician – and his job would change. The job is to include things like executions by lethal injection.

The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed. He went on to say, “Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other product.” Lawyers would be advertising too. Keep in mind, this was an audience of doctors; being addressed by a doctor.

And it was interesting that he would make some rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past. A few die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an institution of one kind or another.

Group practice would be encouraged, corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of medical care gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors would more and more become employees rather than independent contractors. Along with that, of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer, not his patient.

So we’ve already seen quite a lot of that in the last 20 years. And apparently more on the horizon. The term HMO was not used at that time, but as you look at HMO’s you see this is the way that medical care is being taken over since the National Health Insurance approach did not get through the Congress.

A few die-hard doctors may try to make a go of it, remaining in solo practice, remaining independent, which, parenthetically, is me but they would suffer a great loss of income. They’d be able to scrape by, maybe, but never really live comfortably as would those who were willing to become employees of the system.

Ultimately, there would be no room at all for the solo practitioner after the system is entrenched.


The next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. He said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable – at least for along time.

No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, “Is this a case of what he was talking about?”

Some years later AIDS developed. I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.


Cancer. He said. “We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released. But consider – if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as of something else.”

Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them.

But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.


Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He said, “There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination.”

Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from this particular man at that particular time.

This, and the business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework. People would have to eat right and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won’t.

This in the connection of nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can recall as to particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature arteriosclerotic heart disease.

And that if people who were too dumb or too lazy to exercise as they should then their circulating fats go up and predispose to disease. He also said something about diet information would be widely available, but most people, particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good.

There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can’t recall what they were. But I do remember having reflections about wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these contaminated foods would be. I regret I don’t remember the details about nutrition and hazardous nutrition.

With regard to exercise, he went on to say that more people would be exercising more, especially running, because everybody can run. You don’t need any special equipment or place. You can run wherever you are.

As he put it. “people will be running all over the place.” And in this vein, he pointed out how supply produces demand. And this was in reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As this would be made more widely available and glamorised, particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate people to develop an interest in running as part of a whole sort of public propaganda campaign.

People would be encouraged then to buy the attractive sports equipment and to get into exercise. In connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would rapidly increase. That this had a connection with the family too.

As more and more people eat out, eating at home would become less important. People would be less dependent on their kitchens at home. And then this also connected to convenience foods being made widely available – things like you could pop into the microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed.

And of course we’ve now seen this. But this whole different approach to eating out and to previously prepared meals being eaten in the home was predicted at that time to be brought about. The convenience foods would be part of the hazards.

Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn’t deserve to live very long.

This was all presented as sort of a moral judgement about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people – and the kind you want to live longer.

Part 2 soon.

7 responses to “New Order of the Barbarians

  1. umm it’s too accurate to be a made up story.

  2. Behind The veil

    There is something odd here. Had there been no abandonment of faith, would people have met their end quite naturally and relatively calmly in the knowledge of something on the other side – a better place. That population management that they strive for might have been achieved in part without the huge complexity “they” appear to have designed. But for some reason they seemed remarkably keen to destroy faith too.

    One wonders if that as well their being a plan – is there a plan behind the plan?

  3. The thing is, if you don’t believe in the sky fairy and the bad ‘un, it does seem to defy sense. If you do believe there is something in it, then it’s dead easy to understand – it’s the original mental illness of the spoilt child – can’t have what he wants, throws the toys out of the pram and gets worse and worse, co-opting anyone along the way.

  4. It comes back to Darwinism offering a degree of scientific legitimacy, Re-incarnation providing a moral “get out clause” and, worse than that, antinomianism. Doing evil so that good can come. Sinning so that grace may abound.
    Phew who would choose this as a pastime?

  5. Behind The veil

    When we mention the “bad ‘un” that’s what leads me to think there’s a plan behind the plan. It’s a bit like the opening scene in the Dark Knight Rises a whole host of bank robbers who think they’re robbing a bank and the plan is to share the spoils. What they haven’t sussed is that behind that idea is another plan they’re not party to that will see the joker kill them all and leave with all the money.

    I wonder if that’s what’s happening here. Whether they think they’re naively building a utopia or knowingly aiding the ambitions of the bad ‘un are they’re presuming they going to get a cut of the spoils at the end.

    I suspect however they will be devoured too when it is all in place and they have served their purpose.

  6. “I suspect however they will be devoured too when it is all in place and they have served their purpose”
    I suspect that as well

  7. The anti-life Diabolical rises.